About your Search

20130121
20130129
STATION
CSPAN2 6
CSPAN 5
CNNW 4
CNN 3
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
FBC 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 35
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35 (some duplicates have been removed)
down at all in the last four years. >> let's go to other presidents george w. bush, clinton. what will their unemployment numbers. >> you can look at those numbers president bush got hit by economic crisis. increased toward his popularity. president clinton very popular his unemployment numbers were extremely low. you can see the correlation. reagan's number interestingly enough 7.3 percent it was high. it came down it was much higher closer to 10 percent he was re-elected. his started at 3.5 it went up to almost 5. even though he was reelected in a land slide he was not popular because he wasn't likeable. wasn't that popular. >> you say there's a direct popularity in unemployment numbers and popularity. >> the trajectory of unemployment. if you bring it down your popularity goes up almost inversely. the other way around. even if you have a low number to start with if you go up your popularity goes down. >> those are the popularity numbers. talk about the national debt at the start of a second term for president obama. >> epic crisis proportions. what was interesting about the pea
as well. we will see, shep. >> shepard: republicans are aware george w. bush did it this too. >> he actually did it far more than president obama. who has only used this kind of recess appointment less than 30 times in 40 years. george w. bush used it 141 times over the course of two terms 8 years. that's why jay carney said that this is going to be overturned eventually whether it's by the supreme court. take a listen. >> we respectfully but strongly disagree with this decision. it counters 150 years of precedent. there are over 280 recess appointments made in -- during intrasession recess appointments by democratic and republican administrations alike. >> carney also noting this was just one court that was ruling on one case in washington state. a suit that had been brought against the nlrb. that's why tonight at the white house they are not sweating too much. they believe that they can win at the supreme court and they think in the end this is going to be pushed out, shep. ed henry out in the yard. thank you. penn state university could soon settle several civil claims in the chi
george w. bush? >> sorry. i was tweeting. [laughter] yes and no. politically, republicans distanced themselves from george w. bush because it was the thing to do. numbers do not lie. he became very unpopular. parties do not have to embrace figures and politicians to become unpopular. my view is that a lot of distress over bush's domestic agenda from which they fled in 2005. it had been an ancillary result of failure to defend iraq and have a favorable recognition. >> what might have been a successful policy agenda? >> i think the entire country stopped listening to president bush which would be good for the country when it lost faith that he was managing the war effectively. he found it more difficult to get hearings on some of the issues. a lot of people on the right to it came at bush on a lot of these domestic issues. they were feeling extremely distressed about what was going on in the war and did not want to turn on the war. we have troops in the field. this seems like a noble endeavor. they were angry at him for throwing them on the defensive for the prosecution of the war. as
for george w. bush and critter for us. right now, 40% of active duty are women. this could be hundreds of thousand of jobs suddenly would be open to women. am i right in saying this is hublgly significant? >> it's absolutely enormous. the one thing i would say though, the it's not that we don't have women in combat positions. we have women who are ineligible under the former policy, but there really isn't any front line in today's wars. fighting heroically in combat, women who have died in combat. this change just recognizes what's already a reality, frankly. >> david, please be blunt. i know what you have to say is, might offend some people, but this is important. why do you think women in combat is not a good idea? >> i think we need to stress, this is quite an abstract notion. the number of women who will speak and equally is likely to be quite low, but of those who do, i think there are three concerns. the first, the first is is that we are going to see as we have already seen, the expansion roles of women steady downward pressure. strength and endurance requirements in order to ge
like wee winding tape to 2007 and -- george w. bush is really -- that tape speaks for itself. gornl bush did in 2007 introduce immigration reform that went basically nowhere. he made personal calls to members of his own party to get it passed. only 12 of the 49 republican senators voted for it. that was when republicans believed in climate change, when they had not started talking about legitimate rape. the republican party is in a distinctly different place. my question is marco rubio is out there with his plan. there's a sort of general circling of the wagon, but practically speaking in washington, is a house republican caucus going to vote -- move forward legislation that offers a path to citizen shi? >> it's a great question. you want to see the video game ber moving simultaneously, but i think people should be heartened by what happened today. there was a rush to put a face on immigration reform. you don't rush to back something that you think is going down in flames. you want to be associated with it. the fact that the senators jumped ahead of the president on this is a good s
presence put together by jim baker and george h. w. bush and the success in the engagement of it. but subsequent to that, we have seen a completely different scene. that is what i would describe as three alarmers and two alarmers. we about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world within all of a sudden you have people who don't have the -- a lot of people in congress who don't have the previous reference have basically come to the conclusion that the world has changed and we can't afford nor do we have the public support for global open gaugement. -- engagement. when you talk to people back home and you say why do we give so much foreign aid? it is literally like saying, you know, you need to diet and lose a lot of weight and you get a haircut and solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid and presence now is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant compared to it. but yet the will to support that going forward and even step out and say well we ought to be more engaged here or do more here or these are the functions that are working. it's
and that the united states is not engaged. >> look at george w. bush. in 2000 he said he would have a restrained, humble foreign policy. then 9/11 hit. and now we've been dealing with wars for over a decade. we have already made reference to it while the chinese have been investing in africa. we've been dropping bombs in iraq. we are now in afghanistan. 12 years in. $2 billion a week. our defense budget keeps exploding. so an iranian crisis comes at the absolute worst time for this country. >> that's what i was saying early on. >> on so many points. >> things could change dramatically this year. >> richard and i have talked about this a lot. in search of a metaphor, have i been thinking about the islamic role in africa and the middle east, think of it size a large, very dry forest after years of drought. and a lightning strike anywhere, which is unanticipated, starts a brush fire. and then it goes across. we just saw what happened in algeria. what's going on in syria at the moment. and we are not dealing state-to-state. there's an entirely new set of rules for dealing with that critical part of
washington, thomas jefferson, abraham lincoln and teddy roosevelt and george w. bush. >> that's what i'm saying. >> i think george w. bush. maybe fdr. >> stature, yeah. >> two roosevelts is confusing. >> maybe. i have to think about it and announce it tomorrow. we will be at the nationals games and spring training coming up very, very soon. thanks very much for that. >> sure. >> a prominent republican not mincing words saying his party needs to stop being stupid. they are meeting in north carolina. what they can do to rebound and remake their brand. would you take it? well, there is. [ male announcer ] it's called ocuvite. a vitamin totally dedicated to your eyes, from the eye care experts at bausch + lomb. as you age, eyes can lose vital nutrients. ocuvite helps replenish key eye nutrients. ocuvite has a unique formula not found in your multivitamin to help protect your eye health. now that's a pill worth taking. [ male announcer ] ocuvite. help protect your eye health. [ male announcer ] when we built the cadillac ats from the ground up to be the world's best sport sedan... ♪ ...pe
sat down with the director of management under president bush george w. bush. i wanted to get his reactions. many republicans hoped daniels, a fiscal conservative would run for president in 2012. he turned that job down and made a seriously nerdy move. despite he is not an academic, ened up not president of the united states but president of purdue university. i talked with him. >> budgets are the wrong place to be focused but you have made a career, in part on what you have seen as being critically important, which is the budgeting process. talk to me about the importance of budgets. >> i'm a noncombatant. >> no. i'm interested in the importance of budgets. >> i don't have a party or partisan point of view. i'll say that. i would agree that it's a mistake to fix sate on budgets as though they were the end themselves. they are an expression of what's important to us. we devote the most money to the things we believe is most important. it's a fundmental decision. we have to be thinking in terms of priorities and they translate into the dollars and cents. >> you were wildly popular
lazear, hoover institute fellow and former chief economic advisor to president george w. bush has some ideas on what washington needs to do before the new debt deadline is upon us. ed, thank you for joining us. so what -- >> pleasure, thank you. ashley: what should congress do before that debt ceiling again comes upon us and what's the likelihood they will do it? >> well i'm not so sure they should be focusing on the short run at all. they should think in terms of what are things they need to do to grow the economy. if you look at the history of economic growth since the economy got out of the recession, formally got out of the recession back in june of 2009, we've had growth of about 2%. the long-term growth rate in this country is about 3%. so, a recovery usually means that you're growing at rates that are better than the average, in order to catch up. we're not even growing at rates near the average. ashley: right. >> what congress and the president need to do is focus primarily on things that would get the growth rates up. i would putnam per one on the list, focusing on the tax cod
. that is a really good question. i don't know -- the relationship between america and george w. bush was very solid. my mind drifted. your question was the israelis. i am sorry. time for a refill on my coffee. many, many discussions with the germans relative to their position, relative to our position and the israeli issue. public sentiment in germany as a whole is strongly for a reconciliation for the palestinians, yeah overlying all of that is the residue of the holocaust. i think i can say this. i have a private discussion with the foreign minister on this topic and it had to do with iran and the nuclear threat to israel and the position germany was taking relative to that. i was questioning where they might be should there be a real threat or attack on israel. he said you know that that is not what the public would want us to do but given the holocaust we have no choice but to be there in support of israel. we cannot stand by and let another holocaust take place. so those decades of remorse and guilt over the holocaust dictates policy relative to support for israel even though the public now de
another recent president, george w. bush, for the most polarizing presidents the way they put it of all time. chris wallace joins me now, the anchor of "fox news sunday." good morning, chris. >> food morning, martha. martha: what is the meaning of that number do you think? >> well it shows there is not a lot of common ground for the president. this was his polling number last year for the campaign year. i don't think given his inaugural address which pushed a very assertive liberal agenda that it will be much different this year, perhaps even the next four years. there is not a lot of common ground with this president. either you like him or really don't like him. he is perceived as a liberal, and somebody who will push a liberal agenda. martha: yeah. i have the same thought in terms of bringing things together. we did hear a lot about hope and change. when president obama then senator, ran against george bush he talked so much about the divisiveness in washington and how things were going to change. you wonder, sort of, how dispointing that is for him, on a personal level. and we'll no
me now the former deputy assistant to george w. bush and julie, an assistant to frank lautenberg, what a powerful voice. >> powerful, reasoned, common sense approach from a man who has everything to be bitter about. i'm a victim of gun violence almost kidnapped when i was 18, a shootout at the house, the two guys who perpetrated the crime against me and my mom didn't have legal guns. and my position on gun control is the same as mr. mattioli, he has a harder cross to bear, he lost his son james, i'm here, but a cautioned reasoned common sense approach to gun control is where america should be. we have enough laws, he's right. we don't have the enforcement that we need and also he spoke to mental health. the people who perpetrate these crimes are mentally ill in most cases and criminal, and need help before they act out. >> megyn: nothing else, it should add to the debate. so many in favor of gun control have been somewhat dismissive of the other side and their motives, you know, even the president has suggested that those who gin up fears about this are after ratings or revenue.
. in all fairness, president george w. bush was outspoken in his support for immigration reform from the beginning. so i think we have clear presidential support. we have conversation last night with the president and featured he cheered us on anything with a sense of urgency. let's not let this all fall behind. >> he made it very clear that the major priority would be to move this forward in time is of the essence. well, we are moving forward and time is of the essence. >> [inaudible question] >> those details will involve a lot from these numbers it's the reason why i signed onto this and a very straightforward principle. it says we have to modernize our legal immigration system and we have to have a real enforcement mechanism to make sure that we are not here again in the future and we have to deal a way that is responsible and humane. we need to meet certain benchmarks and have access to the regular opportunity anyone else in the world would have. once you have that, you are three or five years away from becoming a fair process. each store legacy is a nation of immigrants. >> [in
of staff for president george w. bush and the 41st president of the united states, texas a & m university, mr. andy card joins us. as chief of staff, you have to set an agenda for the president. what is the challenge with the second term as opposed to the first? >> first of all, today is a day of celebration. yesterday was as well. but today will be the real public day of celebration and i'll be celebrating it, too. president obama is my president, too. i look forward to him taking the oath of office. i want to hear that inaugural speech. but i can tell you, there is going to be a lot of heavy lifting that has to take place in order for the president to be success envelope a second term. that's when the blues start to set in, when you realize how tough the job is and it's not just about the issues that you can anticipate meeting. it's the ones that you don't anticipate that you have to meet. and so i hope he moves from being an i president. he was very much an i president during his first term. i, i, i, i, i. the second term had better be a we. i'm not talking about a campaign slogan. yes
over how to deal with the george w. bush tax cuts. the house wanted them all extended for everybody. democrats are never on board. president obama was never going to be on board with the idea. so john boehner struggled in that situation, even coming up with an alternative plan for extending tax breaks for anyone making less than $1 million a year. he had to pull from the courthouse. so that was. a was. the next day, he also -- not the next day. excuse me, on january 1, they came back and finally agreed to raise tax rates for those incomes of people making $400,000 a year. that was a tough bill and proposal for him to put forward to, just because taxes went up at the end of the day. the next day he came back and decided to not have a vote on the sandy relief package. that made house lawmakers angry in the northeast. governor chris christie of new jersey also had some tough words for him. he pulled the proposal because conservative republicans said the bill was loaded with pork with projects not related to the storm and they should've gone through the normal appropriations process. a
more than george w. bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks or ronald reagan was responsible for the attacks on dhaka marine barracks in beirut which killed over 200 marines and frankly whether was called a terrorist attack or not in the immediate aftermath as far as i am concerned is irrelevant. we just have to make sure if it never happens again savitt in the future of our people are protected. that is what i want to get out of all of this. so we commend you for accepting of the recommendations and welcome your commitment to begin implementing them by the time you leave the department. even before they submit its conclusions the department moved to address certain shortcomings in its proposal. the vast majority for this proposal would come through funds previously appropriated for the lower priority programs. and i hope congress will move without delay to give the department to transfer authority that it needs to start applying these changes. it is important to remember the security isn't a one off endeavor. indy 500 it's a long-term responsibility and investment and in tha
presidents have had to do the hard work. president george h.w. bush made a budget agreement for which he -- may have caused him to lose the election in 1992 because it angered a number of republicans, but it also helped balance the budget and gave us a period of time in the 1990's when that agreement plus a good economy gave us an actual surplus of funding. i sense that there is at the white house a feeling, two things that i would like to disabuse the white house of. the first is that the budget problem isn't a real problem. i can't believe that people at the white house think that. i mean, everybody knows it is. senator mcconnell gave a very good explanation of what was going -- what was going on there, but let me say it this way -- in 2025, according to the congressional budget office, every dollar of taxes we collect will go to pay for medicare, medicaid, social security and interest on the debt, and there is nothing left for national defense, national laboratories, pell grants for education, highways, every other thing, the investments that we need to make in research to grow this c
presidents have had to do the hard work. esident george h.w. bush made a budget agreent for which he -- may have caused him to lose the election in 1992 because it angered a number of republicans, but it also helped balance the budget and gave us a period of time in the 1990's when that agreement plus a good economy gave us an actual surplus of funding. sense that there is at the white house a feeling, two things that i would like to disabuse the white house of. thfirst is tt the budget problem isn't a real problem. i can't believe that people at the white house think that. i mean, everybody knows it is. senator mcconnell gave a very good explanation of what was going -- what was going on there, but let me say it this way -- in 2025, according to the congressional budget office, every dollar of taxes we collect will go to pay for medicare, medicaid, social security and interest on the debt, and there is nothing left for national defense, national laboratories, pell grants for education, highways, every other thing, the investments that we need to make in research to grow this country, it al
benefit cuts. gale walenski, the former c.m.s. administrator under george h.w. bush, said in 2011, "if we don't redesign what we're doing, we can't just cut unit reimbursement and somehow think we're getting a better system." now, a lot of my colleagues give great credence to the private sector. in the private sector, one of the leaders in health care is george halvorson who recently stepped down as chairman and c.e.o. of kaiser permanente, one of the biggest and best health care companies in the country. here's what he said -- "there are people right now who want to cut benefits and ration care and have that be the avenue to cost reduction in this country and that's wrong. it's so wrong, it's almost criminal. it's an inept way of thinking about health care." so from republican administrators to private sector leaders, the message is the same -- we have to solve this as a system problem. let me give a couple of examples of how you might want to go about doing this. as one example of the significant savings to be found in our health care system, a "washington post" columnist recently wrote
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35 (some duplicates have been removed)